Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @09:58PM
from the international-onebutton-machines dept.

jmcbain writes: According to an article on Recode, Apple and IBM have announced a major partnership to bring mobile services to enterprise customers. "The deal calls for IBM and Apple to develop more than 100 industry-specific applications that will run on the iPhone and iPad. Apple will add a new class of service to its AppleCare program and support aimed at enterprise customers. IBM will also begin to sell iPhones and iPads to its corporate customers and will devote more than 100,000 people, including consultants and software developers, to the effort. Enterprise applications will in many cases run on IBM's cloud infrastructure or on private clouds that it has built for its customers. Data for those applications will co-exist with personal data like photos and personal email that will run on Apple's iCloud and other cloud services."

Apple certainly isn't running their own cloud servers. They've done everything to get rid of that. IBM is an OK partner... If IBM is interested this week.

If IBM is willing to convert their "Big Iron" platform front ends to Apple's mobile devices we got something really useful that steps on nobody's toes in either company. It's really just a matter of skipping the crappy web interfaces and building out IBM supported ones in native hardware language on both sides.

Personally, IBM is a short sighted, sucky partner. My company "bet the business" on their support offerings, and I've got my career on the IBM i platform... IBM just plain sucks now compared to ten years ago, it's a gutted shell. But they can "sort of roll out" some really cool stuff. IBM just doesn't stick around to make it shine like they used to.

I was on the receiving end of one of IBM's first acquisitions into the "cloud" space back around '09 when they realized, "hey, there is this thing called the cloud and we need in on it!" I have no issue with that if you are a Novartis or a BofA in that the primary business lies in other areas, but here is/was a technology company that espoused to be a master of all things technology and consulting and selling these services to others.

Case in point, the best attempts internally, and only at a company like I

Well, those two never managed to see the light of day. I believe Taligent is often used as an example of a "Death March" project. It ran for over seven years, but at any point in time during the project, it was only planned as a two year project.

Not quite. MS started NT when Cutler came on board but kept working on OS/2 separately and didn't have any plans to support it long term at that point. He started NT from scratch with his own small group that looked down on those that were working on OS/2.

NT was originally a next generation OS/2 not a next generation Windows. IBM and Microsoft worked together on 16-bit OS/2 1.x. They decided to work separately in parallel on the 32-bit x86 specific OS/2 2.x (IBM) and on the cross platform portable OS/2 3.x, aka NT OS/2 (Microsoft). NT OS/2 was eventually rebranded as Windows NT. NT was a re-write, but it started as a re-write for OS/2.

Apple, IBM and Motorola partnered for the PowerPC CPU. It worked out. PowerPC ultimately lost to Intel but that wasn't so much a PowerPC failure as it was that Intel worked friggin miracles with the x86 architecture. No one ever imagined they could get x86 to the performance levels that they did. I suppose technically they did not. Intel actually went to RISC but its hidden in the core of the CPU and only the legacy x86 api is exposed. x86 instructions are translated to risc core micro operations and these

Intel actually went to RISC but its hidden in the core of the CPU and only the legacy x86 api is exposed. x86 instructions are translated to risc core micro operations and these microps are what actually executes.

Intel have been using microcode since the P5 in 1993.Apple's first use of PowerPC was in 1994

Intel actually went to RISC but its hidden in the core of the CPU and only the legacy x86 api is exposed. x86 instructions are translated to risc core micro operations and these microps are what actually executes.

Intel have been using microcode since the P5 in 1993.
Apple's first use of PowerPC was in 1994

Apple, IBM and Motorola began working together on the PowerPC in 1991 when PC's were using the 486.
The RISC core and micro ops that I referred to were introduced in the Pentium Pro (P6) in 1995, not the Pentium (P5).

Current architectures (not all, but not just Intel) decompose the user-visible instruction set into a stream of micro-ops, (more primitive instructions) and send that stream to a dispatch unit. The dispatch unit resolves dependency issues and as requirements are met, sends the micro-ops to one of a series of execution units. As micro-ops complete, their results are sent to the retirement unit. Note that between dispatch and retirement, the architectural

You've just said the same thing twice.First, you said the instruction decoder turns an instruction into a series of micro-ops.Second, you said they're translated into code entry point, that points to a series of what are effectively micro-ops.

Microcode is the definition of the set of micro-ops.

Perhaps you're thinking of the code-morphing technology Transmeta used in their Crusoe CPU? That was a separate internal CPU with runtime translation of x86 code into the native code of the internal CPU.

I'm thinking of the code-morphing, similar to Transmeta. From where I learned about it, the runtime translation target was called micro-ops. We have different definitions. Someone I once knew referred to micro-ops (my definition) as "caveman primitives."

Still, it's an internal CISC->RISC translation, and the retirement unit hides that when it's all done.

Oh so really true, and that is why consumers are inundated with power PC chips today... Hmm, err, Apple was really loyal to IBM, yes they were. Yes yes! One for all and all for one. Just saving up that loyalty for later. Sure, that's it.

Apple, IBM and Motorola partnered for the PowerPC CPU. It worked out. PowerPC ultimately lost to Intel but that wasn't so much a PowerPC failure as it was that Intel worked friggin miracles with the x86 architecture. No one ever imagined they could get x86 to the performance levels that they did.

Oh so really true, and that is why consumers are inundated with power PC chips today...

Didn't you read the next line that I wrote? I inserted it above for reference.

The i* device revolution has been extremely annoying for enterprise IT since Apple has had almost zero understanding or interest in supporting us. Things like requiring plugging in an iphone to a PC to turn off the find my iphone feature with iOS 7 as an example (No I can't contact all 300 field users and ask them to mail me their iphone for a few days).

The i* device revolution has been extremely annoying for enterprise IT since Apple has had almost zero understanding or interest in supporting us. Things like requiring plugging in an iphone to a PC to turn off the find my iphone feature with iOS 7 as an example (No I can't contact all 300 field users and ask them to mail me their iphone for a few days).

This was fixed a year or so ago with iOS 7, maybe earlier? iOS devices can be remotely configured and updated. Coincidentally I just watched a WWDC video that mentioned this, I'm pretty sure it was from last year's WWDC not the recent one.

No it wasn't, as soon as you install iOS 7 and enable find my iphone the device is locked to that users icloud account, there's a way to disable it but it requires attaching the phone to a physical machine. You can disable the feature through MDM now, but it has zero effect if the user has already set it up (horse meet barn door). We've lost a half dozen devices due to folks being let go and refusing to unlock our property, Apple's gotten better about unlocking the devices in the last couple months, but if they're not on our main account so we can easily show proof of ownership we're SOL.

No it wasn't, as soon as you install iOS 7 and enable find my iphone the device is locked to that users icloud account, there's a way to disable it but it requires attaching the phone to a physical machine. You can disable the feature through MDM now, but it has zero effect if the user has already set it up (horse meet barn door). We've lost a half dozen devices due to folks being let go and refusing to unlock our property, Apple's gotten better about unlocking the devices in the last couple months, but if

Your talking about people that were let go? Why on earth do you care if they have to be mailed in if no one is using them (at least for a time)? I agree the management tool should be able to do it, but you made it sound like you had some reason for active users to be sending in their devices. You clearly do not.

Because by the time they're terminated you CAN'T unlock the device without their icloud account name and password, sending in their devices is to apply the code that blocks the feature and thus stop the phone from being bricked without an icloud password. You can now do that through an MDM client, but only if the feature is not yet enabled, if it is you have to have to have the user disable it and then hook it to the PC.

Why do some companies spend so much time worrying about phones. People have all sorts of devices from the company that can't be locked out if people just use the device "out of the box". Laptop, desktop, USB stick, hard drive, tablet, car, etc. Companies get people to return company property when they leave the company, with all sorts of traditional mechanisms. Salespeople have company cars fairly often, and companies don't have a remote lock on the car to make sure that they get it back. Why get worked up

Wait, you completely misunderstand, the USER can lock the device using the find my iphone feature, when they return the property it cannot be reused until they enter their icloud account password after a device reset. This isn't about IT's ability to lock the device, that exists for any Activesync device, this is about a piece of company property being tied to a users icloud account at the hardware level.

This was fixed a year or so ago with iOS 7, maybe earlier? iOS devices can be remotely configured and updated. Coincidentally I just watched a WWDC video that mentioned this, I'm pretty sure it was from last year's WWDC not the recent one.

The i* device revolution has been extremely annoying for enterprise IT since Apple has had almost zero understanding or interest in supporting us.

It isn't just Apple. Many Android and Windows tablets have smiliar issues.

Things like requiring plugging in an iphone to a PC to turn off the find my iphone feature with iOS 7 as an example (No I can't contact all 300 field users and ask them to mail me their iphone for a few days).

This featrue has at least some possible use in the enterprise. The whole "app

That is likely because Apple addressed it more than 5 years ago. The enterprise App store does precisely that and you have been able to restrict Apple App store installation for about the same amount of time....

What are you talking about? That is not a requirement of iOS7 or any other version. You can now and always have been able to turn of find my iPhone from the device. Apple has some problems for enterprise support, but yours is not one of them...

Ok, this hits way too close to home. I suspect Satya is up in his ivory tower right now, curled up in a ball and sobbing like a little girl. And I feel for him; it's going to be a gargantuan task to fend off Apple from taking chunks of Microsoft's red meat.

30 years after the original 1984 commercial the rebels have been co-opted and are now partnering with big brother. That would make a great commercial: "2014". You could have the olympian women up on the screen and everything's colorful and everyone has prettier outfits but they're all still obedient slaves.

"PowerPC (an acronym for Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC – Performance Computing, sometimes abbreviated as PPC) is a RISC instruction set architecture created by the 1991 Apple–IBM–Motorola alliance, known as AIM."

30 years after the original 1984 commercial the rebels have been co-opted and are now partnering with big brother.

In what way is IBM Big Brother any more? They have not been for a decade or more... if anything they are the Nerdy Brother, just hanging out on the side doing technical stuff while Microsoft gives them a wedgie every time he comes back home.

But in reality this pairing is to keep both companies strong against Google, not Microsoft.

Yeah, they worked together in the past, when the IBM name still meant something.

The 2014 IBM is a totally different animal. They laid off all their good people and replaced them with talentless Indians. Their reputation is in the shitter and they are shedding clients left and right because aforementioned Indians are not capable of performing the work promised to those clients.

I just hope IBM doesn't drag Apple down with them, when they finally enter their death spiral.

We fully support IBM partnering with Apple to destroy it. The bottom line: Apple has no fallback, once the hipsters don't want ishiny any more, that's it. IBM will just keep selling bullshit consulting and support contracts to corps big and small.

Yeah, Apple's products are too successful, so now they're not cool enough for you? And the people that buy Apple products are the "hipsters"? Weird.

How about - Apple's better at figuring out what people need and giving it to them in a high quality product than most tech companies, and they sell and support them better than most tech companies' distribution and support channels, so people really like using Apple products and their products sell extremely well, and people are willing to pay a premium for them

There seems to be a significant number of people here who believe if a device isn't either very complex, or doesn't require or at least allow you to tear it apart and rebuild it, it is somehow "unworthy." For a lot of the rest of us, these are tools we use to do useful things, and the utility of the tool is in part based on how easy it is to use.

The question going through my mind, is what does this mean for Lenovo? Lenovo acquired IBM's Personal Computing Division in 2004, and announced at the beginning of 2014 that they had reached an agreement to acquire IBM's x86 server business.

The fact that IBM chose not to partner with Lenovo for developing all these apps and services for Lenovo's Windows and Android tablets and smartphones is downright bizarre.

The question going through my mind, is what does this mean for Lenovo? Lenovo acquired IBM's Personal Computing Division in 2004, and announced at the beginning of 2014 that they had reached an agreement to acquire IBM's x86 server business. The fact that IBM chose not to partner with Lenovo for developing all these apps and services for Lenovo's Windows and Android tablets and smartphones is downright bizarre.

On the contrary. Selling things to someone is different from marrying them. And who would IBM rather have a relationship with? An unstable trio (a Chinese maker of undistinguished hardware plus two rival OSes), or the one most profitable and popular maker of phones and tablets and the OS that runs on them? How many of IBM's customers and even employees prefer Lenovo Windows and Android tablets and smartphones to iPhones and iPads?

The fact that IBM chose not to partner with Lenovo for developing all these apps and services for Lenovo's Windows and Android tablets and smartphones is downright bizarre.

Indeed. It's utterly bizarre that IBM would choose to partner with a US company that has a successful product with good market penetration, rather than a Chinese company with products that have yet to gain any traction.

Think of it more as Google Federal.
'Microsoft, Google spar over federal contract" (04/11/11) https://thehill.com/policy/tec... [thehill.com]
ie getting beyond FISMA and into enterprise - reps with military, intelligence, gov contractor like skills to move iPhone and iPad into US agencies.

I wonder if this means that Apple will finally port it's iOS management tools to run on something other than OS X server. Ever since Apple killed the XServe(and really even before that) this has been a major hinderance to wider scale enterprise adoption of iOS devices. The tools are actually quite good, but if you are forced to try to cram a bunch of mac minis somewhere or trying to get some mac pros in the server room, it's just a pain. Add to that lack of practical way to deploy OS X server instances on the cloud and you have enterprise customers just not interested in trying to screw around with iPhones. Hopefully this partnership will fix that.

Have you tried actually routing mDNS [cisco.com]? Those tools work just fine across subnets, as they are direct IP - it's just an AFP share for Time Machine and a standard CUPS print server. What it sounds like isn't working is Bonjour service discovery (mDNS), which uses multicast.

Thanks for the pointer; unfortunately (or fortunately, usually!) I don't control the routers. But it might be worth a try to ask campus about enabling it - thanks!

I'm a department web guy / sysadmin. Our department is pretty big - we've got some or all of five different subnets to worry about. Mac (and iOS) use has been increasing a lot over the last four or five years, and we're at the point where managing each one as a one-off no longer makes sense.

The last system in my house that understands Appletalk runs Linux. (I had a HP laser printer for a time that apparently forgot how to do TCP/IP, so it would only respond to Appletalk. The only systems that had problems were the Windows ones.)

It's a good thing that there is plenty of MDM solutions that fully support everything you want to do without having to ever touch a Mac then, isn't it? The only thing that requires a Mac is the iPhone Config Utility, and a Mac Mini fixes that nicely. And, now with touchless device enrollment [apple.com], you probably don't even need that anymore.

OS X Server is not required for management of iOS devices, and in fact only makes sense if you are a Mac shop and using Profile Manager to manage your OS X boxes. Otherwise, look at the many other solutions available that can also manage Android and WinMo in order to not lock yourself to a platform any more than necessary.

I wonder if this means that Apple will finally port it's iOS management tools to run on something other than OS X server. Ever since Apple killed the XServe(and really even before that) this has been a major hinderance to wider scale enterprise adoption of iOS devices. The tools are actually quite good, but if you are forced to try to cram a bunch of mac minis somewhere or trying to get some mac pros in the server room, it's just a pain. Add to that lack of practical way to deploy OS X server instances on the cloud and you have enterprise customers just not interested in trying to screw around with iPhones. Hopefully this partnership will fix that.

Minis and the iTrash aren't a substitute for a rack mounted server with redundant power supplies. Apple, it would be couch money for you to continue this product as well as a 17" laptop line, even if they aren't big sellers.

It would rather make sense to license OS X for certain IBM-servers, which incidentally already carry the "X"-tag.
Apple had not much use for their own servers back when they discontinued them. That certainly hasn't changed.